Wakeup call to makers of post production tools

There are amazing tools on the market, from NLEs (non linear editors) to advanced compositing/animation programs. No doubt they have come a long way. My first real job in the industry was working in a machine room at a production company that specialized in documentary and museum interactive video. I got introduced to the world of 1", 3/4", betaSP, digibeta, etc. I began there in 1995, and it wasn't long before I became interested in the edit rooms which housed some fairly new technology at the time, Avid Media Composer editing systems. It didn't take long before I got a chance to try them out, and moved my way out of the machine room and into the role of an assistant editor, digitizing footage into the Avids. A lot has changed since those early days of Avid, but in some ways I sometimes feel we're still stuck in the 1990s. Let me explain.

In an industry that prides itself on innovation, it's hard to deny that media production and post production has taken giant leaps over the past twenty years. Editing has never been easier (the physical joining of two shots that is. Editing itself is an art.), the VFX tools have become incredibly advanced, and sound processing technology has taken digital audio to a whole new level. So, what do I have to complain about?

We've entered an era which I'm referring to as BetaWorld. Companies are being forced to innovate at rapid pace, packing new features in to hold off the competition and selling what sometimes equates to a beta version of a product. There are bugs, workarounds, disabled features, etc. Although Avids in the 1990s weren't perfect, they were generally stable. New versions didn't come out every week. They were developed over time, tested, and released when they were production ready. I worry that we've moved into an era where the emphasis is on new whiz bang features that keep the marketing teams at these companies happy, but leave the users feeling like lab rats. In my opinion, the number one thing as an enduser is stability and an easy to navigate UI(user interface). In an ideal world, the tools should become invisible as much as possible so that our focus is on creating. Yes, some of what we do is technical, but it's creating that is at the heart of why we got into this.

So, why in the year 2011 are we still dealing with the following.

• Gamma shifts
• Color inconsistency when moving files around
• Excessive amounts of rendering
• Misinterpretation of files
• Lack of standards across the various tools
• I/O monitoring issues
• Bit depth issues such as banding
• General bugs in software

The list goes on and on. If I could ask one thing from the people that make these tools. Take a careful look at what the enduser's needs are. Look at their challenges. Understand how people work, what other tools they use,what kind of hardware they run, and find ways to put a huge emphasis on stability and production ready releases. Random bugs do nothing but slow down the creative process. Tools that handle a standard different than is intended with that standard do nothing but frustrate the end user. I understand the challenges to making this happen. I understand there are agendas that collide. I understand that the world is cutthroat and that sometimes making a deadline is more important than making the product 100% right. But in the end it doesn't change what I have to accomplish at the end of the day. I need tools that work for me, not against me. Anything that introduces a workaround, works against me. All I ask is that all of you work towards making tools that work for us, that help us achievve our goals without worrying whether something we do will be affacted by some random bug, a piece of code that can make the diffrence between a job getting done or not getting done on time. Maybe I'm asking for the impossible. I'm asking for the refrigerator that you buy knowing that you can store it with food, it will keep it cold, it will do it's job. Yes, it's a machine, and it could eventually have a problem, but for the most part does exactly what it says it does. That's what I'm getting at.

Films I've enjoyed recently

Beware the Hype Machine

We are living in amazing time for filmmakers. Just look around at all the tools you have access to and how much more affordable they have become. On November 3rd, RED and Canon will be making big announcements that could impact independent filmmakers and production companies dramatically. 

Having said that, as customers we should always remember that these are companies selling us a product. They will say and do things in an attempt to make you want this product. Nothing new there, that's how this stuff works. But I suspect in the coming months, there will be a lot of hype, myths, rumors, bashing, etc going on between various camera companies. I'm already starting to hear it. Sony F65 makes the RED Epic look like a toy, Alexa M will solve the form factor issue and make Epic irrelavant, comparing Epic to a GH2 is the silliest thing you could ever do, etc. I've used many cameras, and I feel confident in saying that there's not one camera for every job. 

I highly encourage everyone to take a step back and don't get caught up in hype. No problem being loyal to a company, but make sure the tools are doing what YOU need not what they are telling you need. This is very important. It would be easy to think that RED One MX is useless now that Epic is becoming readily available. That couldn't be further from the truth. A RED One still shoots insanely good imagery. It's only when you come across a situation that it can no longer achieve what you need it to achieve that it's perhaps time to consider looking at another tool. We are constantly being bombarded with marketing, whether it's on the web, in print, email, etc. I can't help but feel like I'm involved in a mind control expirement. An email comes through announcing the latest and greatest piece of gear, and my first instinct is to reach for my wallet without really thinking through whether I need it. 

Another recent example is the Final Cut Pro debacle. Apple announces FCP X, which is not received well by the professional editing community, and everyone freaks out as if their FCP 7 licenses had been inactivated. I was guilty of that too. In fact, I committed to moving onto Premiere and Avid partly based on all the hoopla. I didn't do that completely blindly though. I did some homework and testing to come to that conclusion.With Davinci Resolve here now at an amazing price, people look at Apple Color as a piece of junk. Why would you want to do color grading in Color when you can get a whole lot more features in Resolve? Indeed, you do get more features but you also have a bunch of caveats that you have to consider, including some substantial hardware purchases. And will you use those features? These are the kinds of things that have to be looked at carefully. Buying the latest and greatest may be a good thing, but it could also be the wrong thing to do for YOU.

I don't disparage the marketing these companies do as I realize it's necessary for them to survive, especially in this type of economic setting. We just have to be smart filmmakers and not get sucked into buying things we don't need. Do as much testing, demoing, borrowing as you can to see if a tool is right for you and your business. Always take other's reviews and advice with a grain of salt as you can never be sure that their perspective will match yours. And sometimes, there are other motives in place, so you have to be very careful with what may appear to be fact, but in reality may have been spun a little bit to make it more appealing. 

So, November 3rd is one of those days to watch your wallet carefully, make sure you understand everything that is involved with the technology that is announced, and if you are on the fence about whether it's right for you, maybe take a step back and do as much homework as you can. There will always be another camera, another editing system, another computer right around the corner and most likely it wil be better than what you're about to purchase today. If you play the hype game, your wallet will become a lot lighter and you may forever be chasing your tail. 

I'm hoping I can follow my own advice.

A Liberating Experience

Okay, I admit it, I've been a bit of a snob when it comes to DSLRs for video. It's not that I have said bad things about them, actually I've generally been kind in my praise of them when things are kept in perspective, but I have barely used them myself. In fact, I've had so little interest in shooting with them that when I get on set and have to deal with them, I'm always fumbling with where things are in terms of buttons, menu items, etc. The first still/motion camera to peak my interest is of course the RED EPIC. Small form factor, 5K resolution, low compression, RAW, HDRx, etc., make this the natural progression for someone like me who is used to shooting a RED ONE. And I'm sure that in the not too distant future I'll be shooting with one. However, in the meantime, I've been playing with one of those DSLRs, and I have to say that this has been a liberating experience. The camera is the Panasonic Lumix GH2. Actually, the GH2 is not a DSLR per se, as the design removes the mirror and pentaprism in order to reduce the distance between the lens and sensor. It has an electronic LCD and viewfinder. The sensor is of the Micro Four Thirds variety and a lot of information can be found here if anyone is interested. One of the distinctions of the GH1 and GH2 cameras are their native 16:9 and 3:2 aspect ratio formats rather than crops of the native 4:3 image. They use a bigger sensor matrix that use full diagonal of the image circle in all three formats.

Okay, all tech stuff aside, the thing that has struck me so far, and is probably pretty common knowledge for a lot of people who shoot with these types of cameras is how much freedom one has to walk around and capture images. When I'm out shooting with a RED, it tends to draw a crowd, not so much with this camera. I could stop on a dime, take a shot, and most people just assumed I was taking stills. One woman did notice the LCD and asked if I was shooting video, no big deal.

So, what are my initial impressions. Here are a few.

PICTURE QUALITY

I tend to never analyze video on a computer monitor, as too many things can go wrong there, so I have been playing it on my TV Logic 24" monitor through Premiere CS5.5 as well as FCP. When properly exposed, and using the sweetspot of ISO 160-640, the footage looks really great. If I blow it up or get picky, there is some codec shortcomings, but why bother. If it looks good at 1080P on my monitor, then it will look good on the web. I still need to test skies and other such things to see what kind of banding there could be. In short though, lot of bang for the buck in terms of picture quality. It's not REDCODE and it's not Arri ProRes 444 but it's pretty darn good considering the specs.

LENS MOUNT

The Fotodiox mount I got is a no go for me. Too much play, especially with my zooms, and there seems to be some light leak. Novoflex one arrives today. Hoping that solves the issues. If not I will have to look into having one made.

AUDIO

My Sennheiser G3 wireless is working fine with it. Had to tweak the outputs and dial GH2 to 1 but it works. Biggest issue is no headphone jack. Hooking up a bunch of audio accessories kind of defeats the purpose of a small, stealthy camera, but I'm sure that's the way I'll go if I use this on projects that would warrant a double system sound approach. The stereo mic on top is adequate. I was hoping a SmallHD monitor would solve the headphone problem for me but as I found out, GH2 HDMI does not carry audio.Umm...okay. Time to talk to the nice folks over at Panasonic and point out that allowing audio down that port won't kill sales of AF100. Nor do i think allowing a perfectly clean video signal to come out of the HDMI port will hurt your professional line of video cameras. Pros will go with the proper form factor, professional connections, etc that come with those cameras. If the GH2 is capable of clean output, it should be enabled in firmware. They will steal a large share of the DSLR video market by doing so, which may lead to those shooters choosing their pro line of cameras later on. Seriously, this is a mistake in my opinion. Look how close you are Panasonic. A head phone jack and clean HDMI and you would be off to the races. But, I'm not a bean counter, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

FORM FACTOR

It's a very small camera, which I love. It's also not the easiest camera to shoot with and hold still. The first day i shot with it (a workshop on building tiny houses), a lot of my footage is shaky. I was using a Cinevate pistol grip. I wish I had brought my Varizoom stabilizer instead. Lesson learned and now my footage is getting steadier. Last night I was on tripod, so all good there. Keep in mind this is a cheapo tripod from my college days back in the early 90's.

LCD

The brightness and color shifting when going from Live to record are a bit weird. I'm still trying to figure that out. I have a SmallHD monitor coming and will compare the image it sees down the HDMI to the LCD and finally to the image that was recorded and played back on calibrated TV Logic.

WORKFLOW

Pretty easy. Open natively in Premiere CS5.5. Transcode to ProRes in FCP, or transcode to Avid DNxHD. The way the files are named could be a problem though. I need to look into how people are dealing with that. Also, while in the field, get yourself one or two of the NEXTO devices and you'll be good to go. No need for a computer. Or back them up when you get home. I just need to find a really fast SD card reader.

LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE

I was shooting with Nikon primes that go down to F1.4 or F2.0 and as long as the ambient light was sufficient enough to allow me to keep the ISO at 320 or 640 I was fine. Need to look carefully at the stuff I shot at 1280. It might be okay. In some cases, I set shutter to 30 and dealt with the additional motion blur. Better than changing ISO in some cases. Dynamic range is okay. If I had to take a guess it would be right around 8 stops. I was shooting in Nostalgic mode.

Still a lot to explore with this little camera, but I can say it has me wanting to shoot all of the time, which sometimes isn't the case with big cameras that need support accessories every time you go out. With the GH2, I'm simply a man with a camera and I like that.The next best thing in terms of portability would be a stripped down Epic, as not only is it small, but it packs the biggest punch on the planet in terms of video quality, so that will be the ultimate. But for now, I am happy with this cute little camera.

Weighing in on FCP X

Everything that could be said about this release of Apple's popular non-linear editing software Final Cut Pro, probably has been said, so I'm going to keep my assessment simple. 

The Good

• 64-bit rewrite means the system is capable of powerful processing. Theoretically this system should be able to chew up video no problem. 
• Apple is a company that likes slick design, and the UI in FCP X is not the NLE UI your dad used to use back in the day. With Magnetic timeline, new media organization, and countless other new features, FCP X just looks and feels different than any other professional NLE.
• The price. $299. But there's also some bad in this, so don't get too excited yet.
• They continue to democratize the tools that once only the privileged few, namely professionals with studios, could afford. Theoretically, they are enabling a whole new generation of editors, artists, filmmakers, etc. to create without limitation. 

The Bad

• Sorry to jump right into the bad, but still waiting to add some more lines to the good section, once Apple addresses some of the issues I'm about to list.
• If you had to pin the overwhelmingly poor reaction Apple has received on this release on something, I would have to say it's the way it has been presented. I understand they wanted to get it out there, as a large number of potential purchasers would be mostly happy with the feature set. That would be fine with a new product, but this is a continuation of a product that has been marketed to professionals for twelve years now. Without people like Walter Murch, one of the most well-known editors ever getting behind the product who knows if it would have reached the top of the mountain. The point being that they needed to give their professional community (post houses, feature film editors, studios, news editors, doc editors, etc) a better roadmap of where they are heading, some rough timelines for getting there, etc. Even educational facilities are being affected by this, which leads to:
• Apple cannot kill FCP 7. They need to phase it out over time, but not immediately like they have. Very bad move and one of the reasons they have really made people nervous. This had led some, including myself to wonder the following:
• Is it better to choose a company like Avid or Adobe who have shown commitment to the professional market or a company like Apple who is unclear about that niche market, and is 100% clear about its consumer market? I think everyone is asking themselves this right now, and some may decide to stick with Apple, which could end up being a perfectly valid choice. FCP X may be  a very different app six months from now. Apple has indicated there is still a lot to be added, either by them or by third parties, which brings me to:
• I understand Apple's a company that holds everything very close to the vest. But FCP is a product that has so many third parties involved, it was a terrible mistake to hold them at bay until the last moment. Now, a lot of them are scrambling to support it and it's a big part of why people are disappointed. If from day one, you could get HD-SDI out from an AJA or Black Magic I/O card, it would certainly indicate a commitment to the professional market. Instead, AJA had to put out a half-baked I/O solution. Apple, you screwed up here. Had all of your trusted partners been involved from the get go, you would have been able to launch with a bunch of support and it would have been impressive and people may have been more patient with some of the new concepts and interface you have created.
• The price. I think this is a bit deceiving. $299 gets you the FCP X download from the app store. But Compressor and Motion have to be purchased separately for $50 a pop. Add onto that Automatic Duck if you want to export AAF or OMF. And Apple has indicated this will be the norm. Third parties providing solutions, which translates to more money. Suddenly FCP Studio at $995 is starting to sound like a bargain, considering it came with a lot of stuff built in, and multiple applications.
• Apple has failed to communicate properly, and even their attempt today was a bit weak. http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/

So, what to do now. I guess wake up from this dream that has been Final Cut Pro and start to evaluate our needs. What formats do we work with regularly, how do we interface with other professionals such as colorists, sound mixers, VXF, etc? What do we expect to get out of our NLE over the next couple of years? Does the company providing these tools see us as a valued customer, or a download order #? Who's the most in tune with what editors need and want? How well do they work with third parties to integrate hardware and software solutions? These are the questions I have asked myself this week, and I have decided that at least in the short-term, I will need to move on to the other two A's in the editing triumvirate. One of those is an old friend, and the other is a more recent acquaintance. We'll see where those relationships go. In the meantime I will check up on FCP X to follow its development, and will continue to use FCP 7 when appropriate. The one good thing to come out of this - it's affordable to own all three, something that was much more difficult back in the day. 

I will conclude with this thought- it's very good for all of us that there are three companies duking it out, because in the end it means better tools for all of us.